Raptor and Jack,

I think your assessment of what the Olympics do for a city may be a little overblown. First, a city is not likely to be chosen — particularly for the summer games — if it doesn't already have a pretty high profile in the world. It also wouldn't be chosen if it didn't have accommodations for a lot of tourists and at least the potential for places to actually play the games. If they've already got all those things, they can pay for an ad campaign that will let the world know what they've got at a fraction of the cost of putting on the Olympics.

But the IOC always pushes the tourism thing more than they deliver and — as I said earlier — the local yokels are afraid of being tagged naysayers.

The games — i.e., the IOC — may make money on the gate if it's in an accessable place, but the taxpayers are still left picking up the tab for all the pools, stadiums, residences, etc. that are built specifically for the event. Almost invariably, the contractors hired for the jobs cut every corner possible in the construction — hey, the IOC isn't going to be around in five years when they things start to collapse to hold them to performance clauses in the contracts — and rarely is there much use for those venues after the games move on.

Raptor,

As far as sports being a hedge against a slothful populace, I would argue that professional/Olympic-level sports actually encourage fat slobs to sit around and play their sports vicariously. I mean, you can get HURT out there playing football or hockey! Let those other guys do it and just watch while you swill beer and yell at the refs.

Sorry, but I think the expertise needed to play pro sports is so far above most people that it does more to discourage activity than to promote it.

Of course, the same could be said of professional musicians; they discourage at least as many as they inspire.

Sorry Rick, Art, Kendall, et al. Nothin' personal.

cheers,

david